Adverse remarks upheld where notice receipt was admitted, prior application was not pursued, and natural justice challenge failed.

Adverse remarks against the resolution professional were not expunged because the plea of non-service of notice was contradicted by the appellant's own letter acknowledging receipt, and the claim that notice was noticed only during routine inspection was also undermined. The challenge on the ground that the earlier application had not been pursued was rejected because no effective follow-up was shown after filing. The natural justice objection based on reliance on the IBBI order failed since the authenticity of that order was not disputed, and the absence of a further opportunity did not change the position. The impugned order was upheld and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adverse remarks recorded against the resolution professional in the impugned order warranted expunction, and whether the order suffered from any infirmity on the grounds of alleged non-service of notice, lack of pursuit of the earlier application, or breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The Court found that the appellant's own letter referring to the notice as received on 04.07.2023 contradicted the plea that the notice had never been served, and also undermined the version that the notice was noticed only during a routine inspection. It further held that the earlier application was not diligently pursued, as no effective follow-up was shown after filing. On the plea of violation of natural justice concerning reliance on the IBBI order dated 24.06.2025, the Court noted that the authenticity of that order was not disputed and, once the fact itself was not denied, the absence of a further opportunity did not alter the position.

Conclusion: The request to expunge the adverse remarks was rejected, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal failed.

---